Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/09

Crop tool

Is CropTool broken again? I can select my crop, but when I try to overwrite the original, I get "Upload failed! undefined". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:52, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Andy, I tested Crop tool and have the same error. --Jarekt (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I just used it to crop this file, so it's either working again, or only failing for some users. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:53, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Working again for me, now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:25, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Commons Gazette 2025-09

In August 2025, 1 sysop was elected; 2 sysops were removed. Currently, there are 178 sysops.

Election:

• User:Theklan was elected sysop (26/4/2) on 28 August.

Removal:

• User:Jean-Frédéric was removed on 12 August due to inactivity. He had served as sysop from 8 December 2009.
• User:JoKalliauer was removed on 6 August due to resignation. He had served as sysop from 17 June 2019.

We thank them for their service.

---

Edited by RoyZuo.

---

Commons Gazette is a monthly newsletter of the latest important news about Wikimedia Commons, edited by volunteers. You can also help with editing!

--RoyZuo (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Watergate video copyright

Are videos such as this one produced by the federal government (and thus public domain)? The titlecard says "Org. from WETA" (this being a DC-area PBS station) but it gives no indication as to whether WETA owned the copyright or was merely the first broadcaster. Marnanel (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@Marnanel: At 1:08:58 there is a spoken credit, appparently to NPACT (National Public Affairs Center for Television), which was at that time part of WETA, a PBS affiliate. So it would seem to me that WETA would be the likely copyright holder. The question would then be whether they did what was necessary in those days to secure copyright for a television broadcast. - Jmabel ! talk 01:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Books from China by year

to move Books from China from, for example Category:1398 books into Category:1398 books from China I have to open each file, edit and save it. There are rather a lot of them. Is there any way of processing them in bulk? Rathfelder (talk) 10:29, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: Assuming I understand what your asking about, you can use Cat-A-Lot to do bulk file moves. It can be enabled in your preferences at the top of the "tools for categories" section. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Catalot does not do what I want. All these files are already in the appropriate year category, but to get them to move they have to be opened, edited and saved. Rathfelder (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh yeah. I see what your talking about now. I have zero idea what the problem is then. That's a weird issues. Probably it's caused by something in Template:Digitized Ancient Book in the National Library of China. Although heck if I know what. That's one of the problems with templates on here. It's darn near impossible to figure what how to fix problems with them when they go wrong. It looks like the creator of it, User:虹易 isn't really active anymore either. IMO the template should just be removed from the files and it should be deleted. It's totally pointless anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Help:VisualFileChange.js might work if you know what string you want to replace, and if you know how to write that string in Regex. Nakonana (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@Rathfelder, if you want to do null edits (saving without editing anything) in bulk, you can use VFC as menetioned above, select the files and then prepend/append {{subst:void}}. This should save a lot of time compared to doing it individually. Tvpuppy (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I dont need to change anything - they are are all - I think- marked as being in the category. Rathfelder (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I forgot to say, as a test, I have just used VFC to do null edits on the files in Category:1398 books, so that’s why they are marked correctly. Tvpuppy (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Will null edits help? It looks like there's some template-like string in the license section which adds the general 1398 books category and prevents moving the files into a different category. I'd think that that string needs to be either deleted or replaced to move the files. Nakonana (talk) 15:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it is a null edit. But how can I do a load at once? Rathfelder (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

You need to install Visual File Change. This will add a "Perform batch task" link to the tools menu on the category page. If you click that link, a window will open where you can choose the option "prepend any text" or "append any text", and there'll be a text box for the text you want to prepend/append, that's where you write {{Subst:void}}. And then select the files on which you want to perform that edit. Nakonana (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will have a try. Rathfelder (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

VisualFileChange doesnt appear in my preferences under gadgets. Is it hidden somewhere?

and when I try Automatic: click here and follow the instructions. I just come back to the same Help:VisualFileChange.js page - I dont get any instructions Rathfelder (talk) 19:55, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

But Try it without installing does work! Rathfelder (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

If I remember correctly you might need to have a particular user status/group for it to appear in the gadgets list. You'll probably have to install it manually or use it without installing. Nakonana (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm afraid I dont understand how to use Subst:void. Is there an explanation somewhere? Rathfelder (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Explanations of what the templates do can be found on enwiki Wikipedia:Substitution and Template:Void. Nakonana (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

CropTool only possible of rotation by 90, 180 and 270° ?

I've noticed that it's no longer possible to rotate to any desired angle in the CropTool. Only 90, 180, and 270°. Has this been changed? Wouter (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Wouterhagens: You are probably in "Lossless" mode rather than "Precise" mode. - Jmabel ! talk 02:37, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks!! Wouter (talk) 08:03, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Close relative created files uploaded

I was searching for some railway related picture and found some pictures which were uploaded by Santosh4118 which were not their original work, it says Uploaded a work by Arjun Arvind (Brother) from WhatsApp with UploadWizard. Is this ok to upload files of someone else without vrts.––KEmel49(📝,📤) 16:46, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

No (unless they happen to be freely licenced, or inherited). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:02, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Creating a searchable list of my Commons uploads

I have uploaded hundreds of photos during the past 15 years. Sometimes I want to check on one. Scrolling through pages of them to find the right one is a pain. Other than selecting a page, copying and pasting into, say, Microsoft Word, is there a solution that allows, at least, searching of the file names? Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 02:30, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@SCHolar44: "Hundreds" should be pretty easy (says someone with about 70,000). You can easily create a user category, use Vfc or Cat-a-lot (once) on your uploads list to put them all in that category, and then use "incategory" in future searches to search within that category. - Jmabel ! talk 05:20, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Another option is to search for InsertFileNameOrSearchTermsHere "Author SCHolar44". It however only works for files of which you indicated you are the author (it basically looks up the Author field of the Information/Summary box). --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

only filenames:

1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/upload&user=SCHolar44&type=upload&limit=500
2. https://xtools.wmcloud.org/pages/commons.wikimedia.org/SCHolar44/6/noredirects/live

with thumbnails

1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles?limit=500&user=SCHolar44&ilshowall=1
2. Commons:MyGallery.

RoyZuo (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

And if you want to get just full list of files to copy paste you can use Quarry: https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/96868 . If you need a thumbnails from filelist you can create user page with

<gallery>
image1.jpg
image2.jpg
image3.jpg
...
</gallery>

It is manual work, but best i could figure out. --Zache (talk) 10:17, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, Commons:SPARQL query service is great for finding and organizing your images. For example, it's possible to make a list of the filenames of all your images to download and search with any editor. The queries I use the most are in User:Pere_prlpz#Consultes and those should be easy to adapt for anybody else.

The only drawback is that the photographer needs to be identified in the metadata, but there are some bots doing that and they work fine most of the time - sometimes they miss a few files. Pere prlpz (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks for your advice, Jmabel, HyperGaruda, RoyZuo, Zache and Pere prlpz! They are very interesting alternatives. Zache's gave me precisely what I needed and already it's saving me much time. Brilliant! :-) SCHolar44 (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

How to handle transitive image extractions?

It's a bit difficult to explain with words, so let me provide an example.

Suppose I want to have this portrait from the book File:Home life and reminiscences of Alexander Campbell (IA homelifereminisc00camp).pdf.

It comes from Page 9 of that PDF. Logically speaking, I would have to extract an image from that PDF first before cropping into the relevant parts.

My concern is, should I upload that extracted image to Commons before cropping (File:Page 9 of Home life and reminiscences of Alexander Campbell (IA homelifereminisc00camp).jpg) and if so, how should I handle using the Template:Extracted from and Template:Image extracted templates? Or does that overcomplicate things and I should just upload the cropped version?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnkinslow (talk • contribs) 06:12, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

You certainly can upload just the cropped image, but other people might find the uncropped version useful so if you upload it as well it makes things easier for others later. MKFI (talk) 06:33, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

If the uncropped image doesn't have additional value (such as this case), my usual method is to upload the uncropped version and then overwrite it with the cropped version. That way the uncropped version is available in the file history, but it doesn't have its own file page. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

+1 to Pi.1415926535. That is also my usual approach when I'm uploading modified version of a photo I took, as well. - Jmabel ! talk 17:19, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Check categories template

This doesnt seem to be working properly. If I change any other categories as well as clicking to check I get a message "You are editing a prior version of this page. If you save it, any changes made since this version will be removed." But that is not what happens. Rathfelder (talk) 09:57, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Have you by any chance edited the "captions" of the file before editing the categories? I always get the above message after editing the captions. Nakonana (talk) 10:35, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

Actually, any structural data. I always reload the page and then add the category. Ymblanter (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

No I'm just editting categories. Rathfelder (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Commons 21st anniversary

Commons is 21 years old, so some sweets for the Occasion! EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Happy birthday to Commons! Tvpuppy (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

A user or a bot is deleting a category for mexican food

I don't know if this behavior is correct. It's erasing the Category:Cuisine of Mexico category from many images. It seems to me that having that category, or the food category from a state in Mexico, helps people find that image. But I don't know if what it's doing is correct.

this is the record of changes:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2806:2F0:9101:8232:2C72:EB:5C25:6C87

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Koffermejia (talk • contribs) 16:22, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

One of the reasons I hate dealing with IP edits: no edit summaries and no way to discuss edits that may or may not have a reasonable rationale.

If categories for specific foods are present, and those trace up the hierarchy to Category:Cuisine of Mexico, this may be fine. For example, File:Burrito Hermosillo.jpg => Category:Burritos => Category:Traditional food of Mexico => Category:Food of Mexico => Category:Cuisine of Mexico, so it's as reasonable to remove Category:Cuisine of Mexico from that file as it would be to remove Category:Food.

Someone might want to look at these and see if some are problematic, but on the basis of the above, I suspect they won't be. - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

These generally look like good changes - in some edits like Special:Diff/1082293476, the IP is replacing Category:Cuisine of Mexico with a more specific category; in others like Special:Diff/1082301758, they're removing the category when it's redundant. Omphalographer (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Is it necessary to have both these categories?

Is it necessary to have both Category:Portland, Dorset and Category:Isle of Portland? The former is said to be a civil parish, and the latter a tied island, but in practice it is hard to know which category to use for any given image. If we look at, say, Category:Isle of Wight, this combines "island, county and unitary authority area", i.e. both geographical and administrative, into one category. Should the same be done with Portland? ITookSomePhotos (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Combine them No useful difference. Rathfelder (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

"AjaxMassDelete"

Is there still such a thing as AjaxMassDelete distinct from VisualFileChange (VFC)? - Jmabel ! talk 01:01, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

I believe they are the same thing. Even the help page for VFC says "formerly sometimes known as AMD". DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

@DoctorWhoFan91: You are quoting something I wrote, but I've been told I may be wrong. - Jmabel ! talk 16:59, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, lol, sorry then. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Digging through the page history, it seems AjaxMassDelete was originally created as a mass-deletion version of AjaxQuickDelete. Eventually, Rillke (the creator) added more features to the gadget, and renamed it to “VisualFileChange” (see diff [1]). So, I think it’s accurate to say “VisualFileChange, formerly sometimes known as AjaxMassDelete”, as it is the creator who rename the gadget. Tvpuppy (talk) 22:03, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

Wonderful, then it is as I thought. In that case, we probably want to remove the mention of "AjaxQuickDelete" separate from "VisualFileChange" on the "Gadgets" page of user-account Preferences. - Jmabel ! talk 04:26, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Good work all. -- Ooligan (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Finally resolving this cfd

This cfd Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2024/01/Category:Setsumatsusha has been going for 20 months. I really want to try to resolve it. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 13:27, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Unidentified vs. unideintifiable locations

A prickly issue

From time to time, I work my way through Category:Unidentified locations in the United Kingdom and its subcategories, and identify the locations of those I can.

However, some of the images, like the one above, are never going to be geo-located. Should the be recategorised to the highest knowable level (in this case, "Category:Edinburgh", or put into something like "Category:Unidentifiable locations in Edinburgh.

I'm sure the same issue occurs in other parts of the world, also. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:45, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing I've been working on the unidentified locations categories too, and this thought also crossed my mind. The trouble is, every image is possibly locatable. For example, I've just added coordinates to the thistles image you linked, which I managed to figure out through a combination of looking at the Flickr user's other images from the same day and dumb luck of plonking myself down on Street View right next to it (I was trying to get the same perspective as one of their other images and noticed the stonework was similar). Sam Walton (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

The idea of categories for unidentified images has always seemed oxymoronic to me. Most of the time they are just used as dumps for images people can't be bothered to better categorize so the parent cat can be empty. The whole idea of the category system is nonsensical and half baked though. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

For images like your example, I wouldn't hesitate to simply remove the "unidentified locations..." category, or replace it with a category for the approximate location. It's neat that Sam Walton was able to find an exact location for this one, but it isn't something we should expect to do for every image. Precise locations only really matter for photos which depict individually notable places, objects, or events. Omphalographer (talk) 05:08, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Here's the problem, though. You don't want to clog up Category:Edinburgh with the detritus of dozens (or hundreds) of images where all we know about their location is that they are in Edinburgh.

I've dealt with this extensively for Category:Seattle. Over time I've been able to give at least approximate locations (e.g. neighborhood) to literally thousands of images that were in that category. At the same time, there have been a thousand or so where I couldn't do that. We don't want to lose the relationship to Seattle, but surely we do not want to throw all of what is in Category:Unidentified locations in Seattle, Washington directly into Category:Seattle. - Jmabel ! talk 20:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

For larger cities and other geographic areas with a relatively complete category system, all images should be able to be categorized by subject, so we shouldn't have to flood the broader category even if the exact location within that city/area isn't known. That said, I think "unidentified locations in ..." categories can be useful for maintenance. Perhaps it would be worth retitling as something like "Images of XYZ needing more precise location" to emphasize the maintenance aspect and implicitly discourage images where an exact location is unlikely to be findable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Precisely. I don't mean throwing images directly into location categories, but placing them into location-based categories appropriate to their content, e.g. "plants in Edinburgh" or what-have-you. And yes - distinguishing between files with unknown locations which are knowable and significant, and ones whose location is unknowable or irrelevant, is important. We don't need to locate every photo just for the sake of doing it. Omphalographer (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

The issue I tried to raise here is the difference between "Images needing more precise location" and "Images that cannot be located more precisely". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:58, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it is a potentially useful distinction. Though as Samwalton9 evidences above, sometimes you can have the surprise of precisely locating something where you never would have imagined it was possible. I've certainly had that happen now and then. - Jmabel ! talk 03:39, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

images people can't be bothered to better categorize - I do understand Adamant was targeting mostly the uploaders, in this quote from above. If a contributor adds regularly to Commons, they definitely should do this work by themselves. But there are still those who don't know how things are properly categorized in the first place. That is why it often falls to a voluntary user group, "categorizers", who sort images in the right category. However, in this line of work I often come across images that I feel I should really not "be bothered" about much. But I can still push them in the right direction, like "unidentified plants", "unidentified politicians of India", etc., based on the obvious image content.

There ARE experts among the categorizers who specialize in biology or who can read Hindi: Why should I spend 10-30 minutes to educate myself enough to "properly" categorize an image down to the final correct category, when I can easily push it in the right direction, by assigning an "unidentified" category, and continue with 10-30 more files in quick succession?

So I say that "unidentified" categories are necessary for maintenance purposes. For truly unidentifiable locations, I would not object to a category like "unidentifiable locations", where the really tough nuts can be placed. With those thistles in Edinburgh, I think they are a good addition to "Nature of Edinburgh"... but if we had no clue where in the world they are, I also think it should be okay to just categorize them in the biological category and ignore the issue of location. --Enyavar (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

@Enyavar: Uploaders sure. I was mainly thinking of something like Category:Unidentified logos where we know what 99% of the logos are of (because their logos obviously), a lot of them are already in other sub-categories of the parent, but people just dump images there because they don't want the main category to be filled with images (even though it is already). I'd 100% say in that case it's just pure laziness because people don't want to bother actually putting the images anywhere else. I'd say a category for "unidentified logos" is oxymoronic though because it's inherent to a logo to know what it's a logo of.

Like the category contains File:A. Zerega's Sons, Inc. logo 01.png. We know that's a logo for A. Zerega's Sons. Yeah, maybe we don't know exactly what type of business it is, the country it's located in, or whatever. But so what? That doesn't make it "unidentified" and it would have taken 10 seconds to do a Google search and find out more information about the business so it could be put in a better category instead of just dumping it a meaningless category and calling it good there.

You could maybe argue for the merits of a category for unidentified plants but it's infinitely reducible and what we are really talking about here is "uncategorized" not "unidentified" anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

This was about geographic locations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

"images people can't be bothered to better categorize"—There are also:

• Newbies who don't know how we categorise
• People with photos that they know will be of use to us, but they genuinely don't know where they took them (maybe it was thirty or more years ago...)
• People pulling in photos from Flickr, US Government sites, etc., where the location is not clearly identified.

I have seen examples of all of these in recent weeks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:58, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

The categories should be called "uncategorized images of X" or whatever then. But there's always going to be a level, or multiple levels, of locations that any image hasn't been put in a category for. Country, state, city, street, exact address, interior versus exterior Etc. Etc. At some point you have to say it's categorized good enough and doesn't deserve to be in a category for "unidentified whatever" anymore. With geographical locations I'd say that should be at the country or regional level depending. But there's already people looking through regional level categories for images that haven't been better categorized. Everyone knows Category:Edinburgh (civil parish) has image in it that haven't been put in more specific categories and that's one of the reasons they are browsing it to begin with. Having Category:Unidentified locations in Edinburgh (civil parish) or whatever on top of it is just nonsensical and pointless. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:07, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

But if files are sorted into categories such as “Uncategorized images from X,” aren't they technically already categorized, which means the category contradicts the images? --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@PantheraLeo1359531: No, that would basically be a maintenance category, even if it is not currently tagged as such. We don't consider an image categorized just because it has a maintenance category- Jmabel ! talk 19:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Ah I see, thanks for that :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

reverse Flickrwashing

Have a question about what's basically the opposite of "Flickrwashing". This image is an official U.S. Navy photo - and it says as much in the image description! - but it's also listed as "All rights reserved". Given this is a goverment image, and is stated as such, it's PD-Navy. Is there anything I should do when uploading it to indicate that the "All rights reserved" on Flickr is invalid due to this? - The Bushranger (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Media that is PD allows anybody to do whatever they want with it, even declaring that they own rights when it's not the case. Of course, other people are free to ignore such a statement... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

isnt fraud illegal? Trade (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Obviously, there are statutes that define a legal meaning of the term "fraud," but not every lie is a crime.

In the U.S. (unlike France) there is no law against falsely claiming that a public domain work is your own. There is no law even against having someone pay you for the right to use it: in fact people sell good prints of PD photos all the time, often with no attribution to the known original photographer, but with the name of the individual or company (looking at you, Alamy) that is selling it. As far as I know, they could even put a © symbol on it without breaking any law. What would presumably be illegal is demanding payment from someone who used or reproduced the photo (e.g. in a book), basing your case on a false claim that you own the copyright, though even that would be a tough case to pursue without enough of a pattern of such shakedowns to show it was intentional. - Jmabel ! talk 04:24, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger No, nothing special you need to do, just use an appropriate PD tag when uploading, and don't include a {{Flickrreview}} tag. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

You could also rely upon the original publication: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/6400067 Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:48, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks all. Image now at File:CH-54A Tarhe sn 67-18430.png. - The Bushranger (talk) 01:55, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: You should have gone for the original JPEG from the US archive... File:CH-54A Tarhe sn 67-18430 DF-SN-86-12133 1985-08-01.jpeg, it has a better resolution. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Good find, @Grand-Duc: , thanks. - The Bushranger (talk) 03:25, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: if you happen to involve yourself again with imagery from the US military, I think taht you can safely assume that Flickr is only a secondary source for (older) images. They should most often be available through official archives, which will provide the most extensive description possible. In the past days, I used https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc.html and https://catalog.archives.gov/ to search; there may be other addresses. In case you need it, I suggest asking on a EN-WP reference desk, there should be people more knowledgeable than me about these matters. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

If-then categorization in by-year template

Looking at Template:USA-churchphotoyear, it looks like (a year ago) somebody tried to add an if-then parameter to the categories it adds when used, so that if there's a "Category:Religious buildings in the United States photographed in year" category for that year, it sorts "Category:Churches in the United States photographed in year" under it, but if there is not, it categorizes in "Category:Buidings in the United States photographed in year". The thing is, this isn't working; it's categorizing categories using the template into both parent categories (see for instance Category:Buildings in the United States photographed in 2025, which has Category:Churches in the United States photographed in 2025 both as a direct subcategory and as a subcategory of Category:Religious buildings in the United States photographed in 2025). I'm not sure what's causing this to not work (or if this sort of thing can even work at all?) so if somebody with more knowledge can take a look at this? - The Bushranger (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

@Kreuz und quer: Since their the one who added the code (personally, I'd just delete it if they don't respond). --Adamant1 (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

@The Bushranger I fixed the template, the template was checking if "Religious buildings in the United States photographed in year" exist, when it supposed to check if "Category:Religious buildings in the United States photographed in year". This means the template always categorize the pages into "Category:Buidings in the United States photographed in year" no matter what.

The reason the church category also has the religious building category as a parent category is because it was added manually (not through the template, see edit where I removed it [2]). Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 02:36, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

...and I feel silly for not having noticed that now. Thanks for the fix! - The Bushranger (talk) 03:58, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Everyone -- good catch and thanks for the fix! Kreuz und quer (talk) 10:39, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Desysop of A.Savin for 1 year

A.Savin has been desysopped for 1 year after the passed U4C Motion. After 1 year, they may reapply by an election/RfA on Commons. We thank A.Savin for their service. On behalf of the U4C, --Ghilt (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

How do i block my myselg

im self deteriorating right now can i please be blocked Cyberwolf (talk) 23:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Calm down, we all do mistakes. Just tell me what the issue is, ok? Trade (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

@Cyberwolf: you can't block yourself, but if you like I can put a 6-month (or whatever) block on your account. If you change your mind, then like any block, you can appeal it and in the circumstances the appeal would readily be granted. - Jmabel ! talk 21:12, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I’m calm i apolize Cyberwolf (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Global discussion on Welcome messages

Sorry that this message is in English. Please help translate to your language. There is a request for comment at m:Special:MyLanguage/Requests for comment/Welcoming policy on a proposal to forbid sending welcome messages to users who have not made an edit, which is currently in practice at your wiki. Your comment on this matter would be appreciated.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

SVG logos and city seals

Hello everyone! I'm new to vector graphics and I've recently been reintroduced to the threshold of originality in this deletion discussion. I've been on quite a spree making these and want to make sure I'm doing things correctly. Some of my uploads seem to be ok, but a file like File:Logo of Muskegon.svg might be an issue? If some of these files are an issue, would we be able to move them to English Wikipedia? Thank you!--WMrapids (talk) 03:26, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

@WMrapids: If you scroll a little more then half way down Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States there's some examples of logos and whatnot that are PD in the United States. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Adamant1. I just wish there were a more objective way of determining other than examples, which is why I'm asking for some opinions. Again, I don't want to do anything incorrectly, so thanks for your advice! WMrapids (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Usually the only way to tell if something is above the threshold of originality or not if you aren't sure is to nominate it for deletion since it largely depends on what other users think. Not to say you should upload images that are clearly copyrighted, but no one cares if people upload ones they aren't sure about and then nominates them for deletion. Worst case, they just get deleted and then you'll know better where the line is. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Possible further clarification: this is an area where statute law is very vague. It is almost entirely a matter of case law. Because of our precautionary principle, Commons tends to stay toward the more cautious side of what we can glean from case law, but the result is simply that we've built up our own larger body of something resembling case law, not that we've been able to create anything more like a statute. - Jmabel ! talk 06:01, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Files on Commons need to have a free use rationale. They must either be in the public domain or have a free license. That information should be identified on the file page. If someone wants to use a file, then they should examine that information.

File:Logo of Muskegon.svg claims the image is {{PD-textlogo}}. There is no doubt that the text "City of Muskegon" is simple text and not subject to copyright. However, the figures drawn inside the stylistic "M" are not simple geometric shapes such as circles, lines, triangles, squares, and .... They are drawings of buildings, plants, and playgrounds. The logo is above COM:TOO-US, so it needs some other justification that the image is PD or has a free license.

Glrx (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I wanted to be sure that I'm doing things correctly. WMrapids (talk) 17:15, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion. Glrx (talk)

Fixing media misrepresenting a contentious topic such as the Russo-Ukrainian War ?

This colorized map File:Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) - Содружество Независимых Государств (СНГ).png has a description with a colour legend "Occupied territories and no members" (same in Russian).

However, the bitmap has its own colour legend where the same colour has legend "Disputed territories and no members" (same in Russian).

This self-evident discrepancy should be fixed. Looking at the sources of e.g. en:Russo-Ukrainian War the necessary change is in the bitmap, which is not trivial to modify. (The creator of the map seems to not have contributed in a couple of years).

Is there a process to flag (or even better fix) such media that misrepresents a en:WP:contentious topic such as the Russo-Ukrainian War? Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

This file has always been with the word "disputed". The description page was consistent with the file until an IP user with only this edit hijacked it by writing the word "occupied" [3]. The fix is very simple in this case: revert that edit of the IP. If you want an image with a different legend to suit particular political views, that is possible, you can make a version of the image under a different file name. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:43, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I reverted that edit, now the legend in the description should match the legend in the image. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

New parent category about reconstitution/recontruction of ancient buildings?

Hello,

I have been working for a while on Commons on categories such as Category:Reconstruction of prehistoric buildings, Category:Reconstruction of ancient Celtic buildings or Category:Reconstructions of ancient Roman architecture and their subcategories, and I tried to also categorise each site by country, under Category:Reconstruction (architecture) by country.

However, I was told on Wikidata that I had made the mistake or wrongdoing of "repurposing" the corresponding item. See d:Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2025/08#Repurposing of Q1370468.

Actually, they must be a significant difference between "reconstruction" of a building which is not so old and whose appearance is fairly well known at the time of reconstruction (after being destroyed or severely damaged by fire, earthquake, bombing, or simply after becoming too old...), and reconstitution of a building of ancient or prehistoric times, based on archeological evidence, which is more related to Category:Experimental archaeology or could be described as "replicating an ancient architectural object".

So I may need another parent category in place of Category:Reconstruction (architecture) to distinguish one from another, and perhaps rename some of the subcategories such as Category:Reconstruction of prehistoric buildings. I suggest Category:Reconstitution of ancient buildings as a new category, then rename some of the other as Category:Reconstitution of prehistoric buildings, etc.

I prefer to check beforehand whether this corresponds to the subject (partly because English is not my native language). Do you approve this category structure and naming or suggest otherwise? Astirmays (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

• @Astirmays: above all: I hope you got the message that you should never repurpose a Wikidata item.
• Is there any distinction between what you are talking about and Category:Historical recreations?

- Jmabel ! talk 21:09, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel, don't worry, I don't use to repurpose Wikidata items. The fact is that I wasn't the first one to name "Reconstruction" a replica of an ancient/prehistoric building on Commons. Both words reconstruction and reconstitution exist in English as well as in French, which of course does not imply that they mean exacltly the same thing. I would not have used "reconstruction" for this meaning in french, but I thought I had observed that it was the proper word in english, and that it was he intended meaning of the Wikidata item.

I guess Category:Historical recreations is quite related, but both too broad (not just buildings) and too narrow (a prehistoric house is not a historical event that we commemorate). It could be a parent category of the one to create I guess.

Does the word "reconstitutions" seem appropriate and sound right for a building that were made in an attempt to reproduce as authentically as possible, a prehistoric house (or hut) for exemple, in an experimental archaeology approach and/or for educational purpose, typically for an open-air museum? (See this category for example). Or is "recreation" or "reconstruction" better? Astirmays (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

"Reconstitutions" in English does not normally refer to physical things. You can "reconstitute" an organization, but not a building. - Jmabel ! talk 23:10, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

At least IMO "reconstruction" and/or "reconstitution" don't make any sense for things like prehistoric buildings. At least for reconstruction, the definition of a reconstructed building in English is "an existing or previously existing structure that has been substantially rebuilt." None of the prehistoric buildings that there are images of on here fit that definition. I'd also argue that both are pointless terms to to use in category names anyway. Since having a category for "reconstructed prehistoric buildings" insinuates there's such thing as an original, non-reconstructed prehistoric building when there clearly isn't. Know one is going to be confused that they are original, prehistoric huts. So putting "reconstruction" in the name of the category is totally pointless. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@Adamant1: you're not exactly wrong—that's one meaning—but we can also speak of, for example, "a reconstruction of what we believe Solomon's Temple may have looked like." - Jmabel ! talk 23:23, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I just checked the Oxford English Dictionary and its examples seem to cover everything from a precise reconstruction to one more conjectural to one that consciously deviates from the original. - Jmabel ! talk 23:34, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Fair enough. I'd be really surprised if there wasn't a more precise term in archaeology and/or anthropology but I couldn't find one when I looked into it earlier. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

(cross-posted) There is only one subcat of Category:Historical recreations that relates to events (Category:Reenactments). Clearly what you are talking about doesn't belong in that subcat, but so what?

I see that several individual buildings have been placed directly in Category:Historical recreations, to the point of constituting 7 of its 19 immediate subcats. There is also subcat Category:Reconstructions of ancient architecture; I'm not sure what (if anything) is supposed to be the distinction between that and what you are talking about. - Jmabel ! talk 23:21, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it appears that we can keep the word reconstructions.

Then we could use Category:Reconstructions of ancient architecture (which was created just one year ago) but the distinction is that its current content and parent categories limit its scope to en:Ancient history in the narrow sense (ie Antiquity). "Ancient" is still an ambiguous term in English (in French fr:Antiquité more clearly excludes Prehistory, Middle age or the Pre-Columbian era in America ).

Here, should it be limited to Ancient time between the beginning of History and the Middle Ages, or can we use this category with this title to cover Prehistory as well as reconstructions of medieval settlements, such as Vikings ones (of which there are quite a few)? Astirmays (talk) 07:58, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I may choose Category:Reconstructions of ancient and archaeologically known architecture or just Category:Reconstructions of ancient and archaeological architecture. Astirmays (talk) 11:32, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

In general, I'd break this down to relatively narrow categories, all under Category:Historical recreations, things that have enough in common that someone interested in one would likely be interested in the others. E.g. Category:Reconstruction of viking buildings is good, except that "Viking" should always be capitalized in English, and I'll fix that. - Jmabel ! talk 18:12, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Photographs by Studio Harcourt

At Category:Photographs by Studio Harcourt the following text was removed: "Per the permission ticket from the French Ministère de la Culture, these works have been released into the public domain by their current copyright holders, Studio Harcourt and the French government. This applies worldwide. In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so both Studio Harcourt and the French government grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." can someone read the VRT permission ticket to confirm if this is true or not? See: File:AndreDeGelas-1942-Harcourt.png for instance, which references the VRT ticket. Some of the images also have {{Studio Harcourt / French government}} See: File:Anne-Marie-Peysson-1958.jpg. If the text is incorrect, what is the rationale for us keeping them? RAN (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig: and/or @Yann: I think they were involved in previous discussions around the photographs? --Adamant1 (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

There is so much debate already in the archives, one only needs to read it. There is no VRT ticket from any French ministry about the Harcourt photos. There is a ticket from a Harcourt employee (about something else) with an offhand remark claiming that the Harcourt photos which were bought by the French state are in the public domain for some reason. I gave a summary at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/05#Photos in Édith Piaf article. tl;dr: The files were kept because a posse from fr.wp (sent there by canvassing at fr.wp) created so much ruckus in the deletion requests that no admin wanted to decide them, and Krd finally closed them when they were the oldest DRs still open. Not based on the merits of the case, but merely because “There appear a lot of votes for keep and no consensus for deletion. If this keep is wrong, please nominate again with summary of prevailing arguments.” --Rosenzweig τ 16:54, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

BTW, said ticket is usually referenced with the {{VRT info}} template. So not a permission, but additional information documented in the ticket. User:Ruthven mass-added these templates to the files last year. Which was a bad idea I think because people keep confusing them with VRT permission templates. --Rosenzweig τ 16:59, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

@Rosenzweig I find your remark not very kind, for the work I've done. Finally, if people don't read, it is not my fault! It is useful to add those templates, because it is then known that additional information about the file is present in the VRTS ticket. You may propose to change the template's layout, if you find it confusing. Ruthven (msg) 12:38, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

IMO the VRT info template should at least use another icon to avoid confusion. It should not use File:Permission logo 2021.svg as it does now, as that is obviously a permission icon as expressed by the file name. Possible alternatives include File:VRT Wikimedia. blue.svg (also in green, red and orange) and File:Test Template Info-Icon.svg (or another one from the vast pool at Category:Info icons and its subcategories). --Rosenzweig τ 13:30, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I have changed Template:VRT info/layout accordingly. --Rosenzweig τ 15:49, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

The passage in the category page was removed because it contained a falsehood. It has to be removed regularly because the same user keeps readding it. The VRT ticket from the new Harcourt Studio is public knowledge, it was quoted initially by the contributor who had requested it ((1), (2)) and in other discussions since then. It was written by someone who at that time was spokesperson for the collection of the new Harcourt Studio and who had previously worked in the French government service in charge of the government collection. Some Commons users insist that they know better than her. They might, or not. The file "Anne-Marie-Peysson-1958.jpg" currently has a VRT permission template apparently added mistakenly by the non-VRT uploader, who should probably have used a VRT info template. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:27, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

"It has to be removed regularly because the same user keeps readding it."—Why not get it (semi-)protected? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Not worth protecting just for that. Hopefully, the user has understood now. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Which way of geolocate is preferred: templates or SDC?

I want to build an geolocate application like https://locator-tool.toolforge.org/#/geolocate but as desktop software. I see that now two ways of store coordinates of files: templates or SDC. Is any one storage method sufficient? Svetlov Artem (talk) 12:06, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

@Svetlov Artem: Most files with images user both. Usually what is simplest for most users is to use {{Location}} or (if more appopriate) {{Object location}}, and a bot will eventually add the same information to SDC. - Jmabel ! talk 21:03, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Supposedly sdc is preferred, since data in templates are copied into sdc, but not the other way around. the templates also fetch data from sdc if no value is given to their parameters. RoyZuo (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Copyright deletion requests/pending

This Category was added to a DR that I started. Why would we have such a Category? Copyright is the main reason why we delete files, almost all open DRs would belong to this Category, which are a lot. Jcb (talk) 05:20, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

I guess to track open requests? Ymblanter (talk) 05:25, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

 Comment, see the related CfD for this category: Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/12/Category:Licensing-related deletion requests. Tvpuppy (talk) 06:03, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

The category does indeed seem to be overly broad and pointless. Pinging @Trade: as the user who created it. --Rosenzweig τ 08:25, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

DR are flooded with AI, nudity and scope requests most of which have little actual debate and are just waiting for someone to pop in and give a delete vote so the DR can be closed. Its useful to have a category for those DRs that needs a degree of investigation and research Trade (talk) 13:19, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Mdaniels5757's proposal in the CfD seems like a good way to deal with it. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Commons2video rejection and cloud convert time out with 30mb file help?

I’m struggling with uploading a 30 mb file to video to commons and the cloud convert fails too(only works at the worst encode ever that resembles vhs tapes) would anyone be open to converting my file to webm using software? I can send the mp4. Cyberwolf (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

You could convert it with the command in either the Linux or Windows section at Help:Converting video#.webm. Copy and paste the command into the console and adjust the file path after installing ffmpeg. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

nvm just had to brute force it into v2c Cyberwolf (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Wich river?

There are two rivers in Lisieux. Wich one is it?Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

You might have more luck at the French Le Bistro, either here (Commons:Bistro) or at fr.wp. --Rosenzweig τ 20:56, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

license-template in need of a fix

The license tag Template:Unlicense puts all files tagged with it, not only into Category:Unlicense, which is correct, but also into Category:PD license tags, which is incorrect, as the latter cat is only for license-tags. Could someone knowledgable with template-programing, fix this template? Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

I have changed the template so it now categorizes them to Category:Public domain instead. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. --Túrelio (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Videos of Recent murders/ violence

So the recent stabbing on the charlotte light rail has been posted to commons as cctv footage I don’t know what it contains but i do know it does show the woman being murdered unsure if it was blurred or not. I could see blood in thumbnails. I get it within policy but the video being posted of a woman’s death is cruel and i think its not really uh aligning with the purpose of commons im just wondering if others have an opinion Cyberwolf (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

I've watched at least one of the videos and it didn't show the actual murder. It only showed the build up (both people entering the train and sitting down) and the situation afterwards (the guy walking through the train with blood dripping from the knife as he was walking). Does this address your concerns? There's also another thread regarding those videos that is particularly asking whether the editing of the videos would make them copyright protected: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#c-Rjjiii-20250909071500-CCTV_and_Iryna_Zarutska_footage_(public_domain_question). Nakonana (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah thanks i just didnt want to absolutely ruin my day by watching it. I was unsure if it was a “liveleak” type where its leaked footage Cyberwolf (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

There are other versions of the CCTV here that is uncensored and pretty much showed the whole thing. So, I don’t advise anyone to watch it. Tvpuppy (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok…. Cyberwolf (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

As a general opinnion, i think that w:Snuff films and likes should be out-of-scope even though they could be stored to commons by copyright. If we need some visualisations for articles still images are enough. --Zache (talk) 06:45, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

You might not wanna look up the photos that Commons have of the Gaza genocide if the CCTV videos hurts to watch Trade (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

What is the educational value of this video? Ciell (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I guess its proof Cyberwolf (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

@Ciell et al.: the answer where the educational value of this documentary footage lies is not really far away. Let's use File:CCTV footage of the killing of Iryna Zarutska (1757445615Qu7sNX2vPea1Fw).webm as example. It shows the actual slashing at 00:06-00:07, the area of the body targetted (the neck near the collarbone in an upward motion, I think parallel to the en:Sternocleidomastoid muscle) and the aftermath - her collapse into unconsciousness and death beginning at 00:22, I think due to a beginning en:Hypovolemic shock. It's hard to tell whether a carotid got injured, though (IIRC, actual forensic experts said on true-crime documentaries that a wounded carotid would show for a rhythmic spray following the heartbeat in the first seconds, before the organ goes into en:arrythmia). The timeframe of the event alone is educational, as objective facts of a sad real-life example that may differ from artistic depictions of slashings, of which fictionalised representations in CSI or movies like James Bond, Kill Bill and others are widespread. Such imagery may be a counter to the en:CSI effect. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Anything that's even slightly covered in the news is de facto educational on here purely because of the stories about it. That even goes for extremely mundane things like AI generated slop memes that are posted on Twitter, as long as they are mentioned in a news story. So there's almost zero chance these videos won't be considered in scope if someone tries to nominated them for deletion. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:39, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Depends how much people is gonna canvass Trade (talk) 20:26, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Your not wrong. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Is Kirk’s up yet? There has to be free media of that and its probably the most graphic clear image of an murder ever would probably be beneficial if this is true Cyberwolf (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

The videos that are currently available online are mostly filmed by people in the audience. These cannot be uploaded to Commons unless one of them released their video under a free license. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

And now a substantive part of this discussion is vitiated and meaningless because someone deleted File:CCTV footage of the killing of Iryna Zarutska (1757445615Qu7sNX2vPea1Fw).webm. The wages of deleting material about people who are no longer alive employing COM:DIGNITY. Slippery slope. XavierItzm (talk) 02:38, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

BLPCRIME

Does this policy apply to Commons as well? Or are we not allowed to make edits and decisions based on BLPCRIME? --Trade (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I would assume it does as its a standard in most journalism Cyberwolf (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I count commons as photo journalism Cyberwolf (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

It's rather a media repository. There are all sorts of files on Commons, including books, maps, pronunciation audio files, which have nothing to do with journalism. Nakonana (talk) 18:00, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

BLPCRIME is an English Wikipedia policy about publishing criminal allegations in encyclopedia articles on living people. Commons is a media repository, not an encyclopedia, so BLPCRIME does not directly apply. Actual file content (for example images that show a criminal act) is governed by Commons’ project-scope rules (see e.g. COM:EDUSE an COM:INUSE); Commons will host files that fall within its scope and can legally be hosted, while individual Wikimedia projects decide whether and how to use those files and may apply their own local BLPCRIME rules. File metadata (captions, descriptions, filenames, categories) must not publish unsourced or defamatory allegations about living persons. Do not add claims of criminal conduct to metadata unless they are narrowly factual (who, what, where, when) and supported by reliable sources; see Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

On ENWP we had issues where otherwise valid files were removed from articles because the title was violating BLPCRIME

Do you think that's an issue we should aim to prevent from happening in the first place? Trade (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

I think a remaining might be warranted if bad enough per COM:FR #5 - but then based on our policies and not specific local Wikipedia policies on encyclopedic content. (Another solution could be to create a redirect from another title and include that redirect in articles instead ). --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing in COM:FR#5 to suggest that it would cover the same file names that explicitly BLPCRIME. The amount of interpretation it would take to apply per COM:FR#5 is so great that you might as well not bother to bring up COM:FR in the first place Trade (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing in COM:FR#5 to suggest that it would cover the same file names that explicitly BLPCRIME. The amount of interprentation it takes is so great that you might as well just use Administrator Trade (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

And yet despite several files naming the person arrested in connection with the Charlie Kirk shooting as the assassin/perpetrator, nobody on Commons seems to care in the slightest or take any issues with it whatsoever despite it supposedly violating our policy

It's quite tiring to continue hearing how serious Commons is about files that violates BLPCRIME despite me being the only person who have taken any issue with files who violates BLPCRIME. Can't we just admit that Commons as a whole does not care about files accusing people of crimes that they haven't been charged or convicted for? Trade (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

The issue is a bit different on Commons. This policy doesn't apply to the images, but to the file descriptions. Yann (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

And ya know titles and categories Trade (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Commons does have Commons:Photographs of identifiable people (and in the backround foundation:Resolution:Biographies of living people and foundation:Resolution:Images of identifiable people). --Isderion (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

hearing how serious Commons is about files that violates BLPCRIME -- where did you hear that? BLPCRIME is an enwiki policy, there's no COM:BLPCRIME. Do wikis in other languages even have a similar policy to BLPCRIME? files accusing people of crimes that they haven't been charged or convicted for -- do the files simply name the person, or do the files actually call the person "murderer" or something similar? Nakonana (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

The problem are not our policies. It is already clear that any potentially defamatory file name or description is not acceptable. The problem is the enforcement as we do not have enough capacity for detailed check of all new uploads. If there are such cases please just report on the admin board or if necessary write to the oversight mail. GPSLeo (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

"If there are such cases please just report on the admin board or if necessary write to the oversight mail" Would the Commons community actually care about that, though? Even here i notice that BLPCRIME is treated as something that is irrelevant to Commons and doesn't apply to the site anyways Trade (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

The enwiki policy is irrelevant. But we have COM:DIGNITY, Commons:Harassment and of course also the UCoC. The local harassment policy explicitly mentions that it does not matter if the target is an user or not. GPSLeo (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

As i said both COM:DIGNITY or Commons:Harassment are too vague and open ended to give a clear answer the issues i have ran into since the killing of Charlie Kirk. Pointing to them does not really help. Trade (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Speaking in vague terms about whether a specific enwiki policy "applies" or not doesn’t really help anyone. If you encounter file names, descriptions or categories that are defamatory or otherwise inappropriate, please bring those specific examples forward so they can be addressed under Commons' own policies. Whether or not enwiki's BLPCRIME text is copied over here is beside the point — what matters is that problematic content gets reported and handled. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

"On ENWP we had issues where otherwise valid files were removed from articles because the title was violating BLPCRIME"

I thought that was pretty clear.

Obviously, it's difficult to stay on topic when most of the responses were just people complaining about me talking about an ENWP policy on Commons. Or people insisting that current policies already solves the issue (they don't obviously)

At the end of the day we have to decide. Do we need to take BLPCRIME into consideration? Or should we just accept that Commons can no longer serve as a media repository because of the uploader's choice of title Trade (talk) 21:28, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

There probably isn't a one-size-fits-all answer since there are competing interests at play. The dignity of the murder victim and the wishes of the family not to see this stuff widely disseminated vs. the public interest in showing it and the potential educational use. I'd tend to lean towards COM:DIGNITY for individual murders and towards EDUSE for videos that depict attacks on a group of civilians or that show an armed group committing genocide. But others might disagree. I think English Wikipedia shouldn't be hosting the Abu Ghraib torture files, but that's a minority opinion. Abzeronow (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree. I think sticking the torture files on the internet archive would be best if its extreme Cyberwolf (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Vast majority of these can already be speedy deleted as copyvio anyways so i don't see it as a pressing issue Trade (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Once again, file urls should not be constructed using a "file name", but rather generic number id. RoyZuo (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Off topic much? Go create another topic if you want to create an argument that’s probably been argued probably countless times Cyberwolf (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok so over the weekend I’ve been thinking. So the videos and photos of the killing should be titled killer of (victim) and mugshots and photos of the suspect (not during the killing) should be labeled suspect in the killing of (victim). I think this will solve most issues Cyberwolf (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Then when the suspect in the killing is convicted it would be killer of (victim) Cyberwolf (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

What about Persons of interest? Trade (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Why do file names need to mention specific crimes or make accusations? Just title them Joe_Shmoe_Mugshot.jpg or Dumbass_Being_Shot.jpg. Nosferattus (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

What? Cyberwolf (talk) 12:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Just do POI in killing of(victim) Cyberwolf (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

For threshold of originality enthusiasts

Could anybody at least approximate whether the logos in this article (latter two images on the right) fail the threshold of originality? I thought about vectorizing them for Commons, but I'm not entirely sure whether that would end up getting deleted because of how complex some of these are. On the other hand – they are just elaborate lettering and simple shapes. Any advice or opinion is appreciated! ☀ Rȕnolīst | ^þⰁ_č 12:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Runolist: TOO questions are better asked at COM:VP/C.

The image at lower right is below TOO for both Hungary and the U.S. Nothing else here looks below TOO, but some of these are presumably old enough to have lost copyright protection. - Jmabel ! talk 19:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Server switch - Your wiki will be read-only for a short time soon

Read this message in another language • Please help translate to your language

The Wikimedia Foundation will switch the traffic between its data centers. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster.

All traffic will switch on 24 September. The switch will start at 15:00 UTC.

Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop while the switch is made. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.

A banner will be displayed on all wikis 30 minutes before this operation happens. This banner will remain visible until the end of the operation. You can contribute to the translation or proofreading of this banner text.

You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.

• You will not be able to edit for up to an hour on Wednesday 24 September 2025.
• If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.

Other effects:

• Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped. Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.
• We expect the code deployments to happen as any other week. However, some case-by-case code freezes could punctually happen if the operation require them afterwards.
• GitLab will be unavailable for about 90 minutes.

This project may be postponed if necessary. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org. Any changes will be announced in the schedule.

Please share this information with your community.

Trizek (WMF) (Discussion) 15:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Looking for a way

I'm trying to convince an organization with interesting historical photography collections to upload material to Commons. The question is whether there's a way to ensure that each uploaded photograph can include a reference to the name of the organization and the photographer who took it. mboix (talk) 07:18, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Mboix: Absolutely. For example, if they release under CC-BY 4.0, use a licensing statement like {{CC-BY-4.0|attribution=WHATEVER IT IS THEY WANT}}. - Jmabel ! talk 19:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Can you show me some examples? mboix (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

If the the organization plans to upload a lot of photographs, they can even use a custom template to indicate the source. For example, see the template {{Photo Araba}} in File:Hombre y grupo de niños en una aldea (ATHA-BAR-NV-015-019).jpg, you can see they included the photographer in the file description, and the custom template includes a link to their website and a direct link to the original image. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

• You can also make sure they include the organization info in the metadata. --RAN (talk) 03:04, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Type of Women's dresses

I there a name/category for this type of dress? Multi layered around the shoulders with lots of buttons.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:07, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

en:WP:Reference desk/Humanities is probably a better place to ask this kind of question. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:12, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Important discussion

See Commons talk:Country specific consent requirements#Take a picture column. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 00:29, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

It really isn't. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Media of the day (MOTD)

Hello, anyone interesting in taking over MOTD? I have been adding most of the MOTD for the past 2 months, but I am going on a break soon and will be busy starting next month.

I have already made sure that there are MOTDs until the end of this month, so you can starting adding the MOTDs for October. It should be quite straightforward since it consists of 4 steps:

1. Select a good quality, no known copyright issues, educationally useful, interesting audio/video file (I usually just choose one from Commons:Featured media, but others audios/videos are fine too)
2. Find an empty slot in Commons:Media of the day and add the file to it using {{Motd filename}}
3. Add an English (or other suitable languages) description to the description template using {{Motd description}} (optionally you can add some links to Wikipedia)
4. Add a {{Media of the day}} tag to the file page of the selected file

Thank you. Tvpuppy (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've been adding most of the files before the last 2 months and will resume adding a few every now and then. I think for other users interested in contributing there it's important to emphasize that the videos featured there are supposed to be of high-quality (accurate, resolution, etc) and of somewhat global or international significance in some way. A good indication of quality for example is if it's used in a major article of a large Wikipedia.

By the way, the MOTD category is one of the best places to explore interesting high-quality videos and audios on Commons in a discovery kind of way: Feed to explore interesting content on Wikimedia Commons Prototyperspective (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Btw, thanks for your work on this. I remember years ago motd used to always be pretty boring, but lately i've been seeing plenty of really interesting things in MOTD. Bawolff (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Palestine in "Countries of Asia" module/template

I started a discussion on moving Palestine from the partially recognised portion of the list of countries into the recognised section over at Template_talk:Countries_of_Asia#Palestine_again - ImStevan (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Burls and cankers

Hi, the categories Burls and Canker included each other, creating an endless loop. After scanning the articles en:Burl and en:Canker I have removed both from the other category as the former is about monstrous growth and the latter is about diseases. Not being a native speaker I prefer to have these edits checked. Thanks! → bertux 11:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I think the way it is now with catseealso is fine. - Jmabel ! talk 19:42, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

There are many thousands of these endless loops to resolve at Commons:Database reports/Category cycles. I just don't think VP is a place to ask about one specific categorization. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:28, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

So I should have asked where to ask a simple question. Overkill? Bureaucracy? Btw, could you be bothered to give some hints about a more suitable place and how I could have known about the unsuitability of the Village pump and how I could have found that better place? → bertux 15:07, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I think it was a perfectly good place to ask. - Jmabel ! talk 20:46, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I would not ask the question or ask it at the talk page of the page I linked. That is because it is not so important to ask the entire community about it (overkill to make a thread here) and because there's countless of such cases if one goes through the page – I mean like many dozens of such questions. That's just my opinion. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I think they wouldn't have asked if not for the language issue. I've definitely asked questions here that might look trivial for native English speakers, like questions about category naming, just because I wasn't 100% sure about the terminology. Nakonana (talk) 08:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Indeed. Also there is no Helpdesk at Commons so I chose the Village pump as the next best. As for the talk page: is it just my home wiki (nlwik) or does nobody read category talk? → bertux 15:42, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Just to let you know, there is a Help desk on Commons, see Commons:Help desk. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh. A Help desk, not a Helpdesk. Thanks! → bertux 10:27, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

CCTV material from problematic sources

The now-deleted full (18+ minutes) CCTV material depicting the killing of Iryna Zarutska has been uploaded from a source called WatchPeopleDie. I'd consider this source generally problematic with respect to COM:DIGNITY, meaning that material uploaded from there very likely violates it. I found Commons:Problematic_sources and Commons:Bad_sources but they are only about problematic/bad sources with respect to licensing, as far as I see. Should there be a similar list about sources problematic as to COM:DIGNITY? Is there such a list already?

Part of the background of this question is that some people argued that this material was released by reputable sources (authorities, police, government) and these would have been arguments that would really have strenghthened the position of those in favour keeping the file. But the immediate source of the material hosted on commons was not some authority or (reputable) news agency. If the material uploaded to WatchPeopleDie was originally released by some authority or reputable news agency is hard to track down but in the end: if there were official or reputable sources that released that material the material should have been taken directly from there. I don't think that Wikimedia commons (and ultimately Wikipedia) should be a hub for material from pages like WatchPeopleDie, no matter if relevant to recent events or ineligible for copyright. People can go there if interested.

I won't take part in the discussion much, but I'm interested in your opinion. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 07:58, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I can imagine that some people rather emphasize the historical component of this video, and disregard the importance of the source --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

"If the material uploaded to WatchPeopleDie was originally released by some authority or reputable news agency is hard to track down but in the end" The idea that the Charlotte Area Transit System had somehow lost any access to their own CCTVs and had the footage released without their consent by a third party is a bit far out i think Trade (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "lost any access to their own CCTVs", but it's entirely plausible that the video was posted without the transit authority's knowledge or consent. Information security at these sorts of agencies is hardly airtight - and I would be much more astonished if they had authorized the publication of the video to that web site. Omphalographer (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdt4eLWaHsg (pause at 0:43 to avoid seeing the disturbing footage)

Feel free to be astonished at CATS. Unless you wish to argue that major American news networks are all conspiring together to cover up the origin of the video Trade (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

The video you linked to does not show the sensitive footage (her being stabbed and dying).

I don't really see reason to doubt that CATS gave the material to the third party (e.g. a news organisation) that released it themselves. But I doubt that they posted it directly to WatchPeopleDie. This is what my final point of the sentence you quoted was about: "[...] but in the end: if there were official or reputable sources that released that material the material should have been taken directly from there." The source which decided to release the material "fully" (including the sensitive footage) matters. Different news organisations weigh different aspects differently when deciding about how to release such material (human dignity, education, monetisation, politicisation, reach, ...) and not all of them align well with Wikimedia commons commitment to the depicted subject's moral rights (as expressed here Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Moral_issues). This is especially important when people tend to delegate responsibility for these decisions upstream (to the source the material comes from). - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 07:05, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Considering the name of the website and the fact that the footage had been heavily censored i doubt whoever uploader it had access to the original footage Trade (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

How do you find copyright information about an archived newspaper photograph? What if the authors and news agencies are unreachable to you?

Hello, an administrator left notice asking for copyright permission related information on my talk page regarding two photographs relating to John Gacy Wayne that I've uploaded. Both of those photographs were borrowed from newspaper archived websites, which I added in the descriptions. With one of those photographs, the Chicago Tribune affiliated photographer had died in 2022 according to his colleague memorializing him in his blog.

The other photograph was borrowed from a 1980 Pittsburg Press article, which gave no names of authors or photographers. One issue with the Pittsburg Press is that it closed down in the 90s. If the wikipedia page is to believed, its remaining assets were purchased and absorbed by the Pittsburg Post-Gazette in 2011. Another version of the "Piest relatives at Gacy trial" photograph was used by a 1980 Noblesville Ledger article published on the same day. Like the Pittsburg Press article, the Noblesville Ledger article gave no names of authors or photographers beyond crediting the UPI photo agency. I'm not certain if the photograph is under the Pittsburg Press, Noblesville Ledger, or the UPI copyright, and the name of its photographer is completely lost to me.

Although my rough assumptions are that the copyright holders are the Chicago Tribune and UPI photos respectively, what should I do if I cannot find the copyright information or the holders are simply too inaccessible for me to reach? Randomuser335S (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

@Randomuser335S: Hi, You have to check the newspaper archives for a copyright notice. These can't be under a Creative Commons license, which didn't exist when these images were first published. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I found the copyright information of ancestry.com copyright information of ancestry.com, the company that operates the Newspaper.com archives I took both photos from. Is this what I need to resolve the "permission notice" issue? Randomuser335S (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

• When you clip a news article or an image, add in the link from Ancestry, you can add it in other_versions= . Then others can look for copyright formalities on page 1. The image belongs to UPI and they did not comply with copyright formalities. I corrected the license. The Library of Congress researched and found that they did not register for copyrights, any image after 1989 would still be under an active copyright. --RAN (talk) 02:04, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks, I greatly appreciate that help Randomuser335S (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

  • @Randomuser335S: it's hard to tell from the above what you do or don't know, but you might want to read Commons:Uploading works by a third party and also, for the complexity of U.S. copyright issues in respects where most other major countries are more straightforward, Commons:Hirtle chart. Also—you might want to look into this separately—press agencies such as AP and UPI often did not copyright their photographs, but it's not the easiest thing to research for an individual photo. You might search in the archives of Village pump/Copyright for several related discussions. - Jmabel ! talk 05:51, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Portrait of Pedro Sanchez / Nicolas Maduro has corrupted file page

I am not knowledgeable enough to figure out what the problem is, but something is not right with the description of this picture: File:Obisk španskega predsednika vlade v Sloveniji (53658605930) (cropped).jpg (current Prime Minister of Spain)

The description features another image, a portrait of Nicolás Maduro (current President of Venezuela); what is going on? TucanHolmes (talk) 20:53, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

An IP user messing around [4] it seems. Nakonana (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

A user account also. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Reverted to the initial description. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:38, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

By the way, the requirements of that source flickr account contradict its PD mark tag. "The use of photos is free of charge and allowed for non-commercial purposes. When using, it is obligatory to mention the author of the photo." -- Asclepias (talk) 23:41, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

a lot of people don't understand the licences, have the same issue with the Indian Foreign govt flickr where they have released the images for free-use by writing that down on their profile but the images themselves are licenced under ARR or NC-ND..In this case, that flickr profile is the official one for the Govt of Slovenia so the photographers are paid for by them so they own the rights, even the exif says "Slovenian Press Agency" ...they definitely meant for it to be released under cc-by-sharealike (thus the author of the photo request)...The Non-commercial rule has hurt wikimedia Commons the most cause over the 15 years of doing this, it has been hard to get majority of this officially run govt and organisation run flickr to understand why wikipedia needs the images to be released for commercial use even though we ourselves are non-commercial.. Stemoc 04:48, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

The person in the picture is definitely Pedro Sánchez. User:Siempreloco made several modifications I very strongly doubt their good faith. Mainly because one of them is changing "Pedro" (Peter) into "Perro" (dog), change resulting into an insult. In addition, changes to this file are the only activity of mentioned user in this project. B25es (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

How come the Category "Things named after camels" has 2.6 million files at level 3

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:56, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

How come Category:Things named after camels has 2.6 million files at level 3 ? see PetScan — Preceding unsigned comment added by JotaCartas (talk • contribs) 15:50, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Because of Category:Uploaded with VicuñaUploader. Strakhov (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

 Comment I literally laughed out loud over this. - Jmabel ! talk 19:17, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

At least my lack of memory served to make you have a good laugh 😂😂😂. Greetings JotaCartas (talk) 23:15, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

 Comment, see previous discussion at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/03#Why PetScan on Category:"Camels" returns 2'622'475 results ?. Tvpuppy (talk) 16:29, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

oops, sorry. I should have remembered, but it actually slipped my mind. Thanks JotaCartas (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, these things named after xyz categories are causing quite some issues. Mainly, it makes offtopic files show up in ways to view files in a category branch (the category and all its subcategories) – the deepcategory search operator can be used for that. So for example the wall of images shown by searching deepcategory:"Camels" is rendered useless due to the inclusion of files from that subcategory. There's several other types of categories like it, just usually with not as many files in them.

Deepcat view with options to filter cats with offtopic files

A solution assuming these categories stay and stay categorized in that cat as they are, would be to enable users to easily exclude that cat from the deepcategory view. At the top of that page it would show a list of subcats sorted by number of files included in the results. "Things named after camels" would probably be in the top 3 and the user would notice this and could simply click some X button to exclude them (or alternatively maybe use a premade filter that has common cats to exclude). On the right is an illustration of what I mean.

This solution is described at m:Community Wishlist/Wishes/In Commons category deepcategory view mode (wall of images), allow easily filtering offtopic subcats.
Prototyperspective (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason Category:Uploaded with VicuñaUploader and Category:VicuñaUploader have to be connected to each other? Like why isn't it something that could be connected through a "see also" link or similar without the categories actually being linked? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:05, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

It only applies to this specific issue rather than the general case, but Category:VicuñaUploader probably shouldn't be in Category:Things named after camels. The vicuña is in the same family as camels, but to my knowledge it's not considered a camel (nor is the llama in the same family). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

OK. I just removed it then. That seems like a good solution. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:45, 26 September 2025 (UTC)